linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our flags

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111003012244.GF31799@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Sun, 2 Oct 2011 18:22:44 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/kthread: Complain loudly when others violate our
 flags

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:27:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There is no correctness issue what so ever with those, and userspace
> moving them about doesn't matter one whit.

I wanted to make it consistent and disallow diddling wq worker
affinity from userland.  As those workers are shared and managed
dynamically, it didn't make sense to allow affinity manipulation.
That said, it might make sense allowing control over affinity of
unbound wq workers for things like cpu isolation.  Userspace doing
that per-worker doesn't make whole lot of sense.  Allowing putting
unbound workers automatically into a cpuset would work better, I
think.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/